SAFE ASSOCIATION 58th ANNUAL
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
SAFE ASSOCIATION 58th ANNUAL SYMPOSIUM
2020 SAFE SYMPOSIUM PROGRAM
VIRTUAL
November 30 – December 4, 2020Table of Contents
SPECIAL REMINDERS & THE SAFE ASSOCIATION ................. 2
SYMPOSIUM COMMITTEE & BOARD OF DIRECTORS ........... 3-7
SAFE PAST PRESIDENTS & HONORARY LIFE MEMBERS ......... 8
REGISTRATION POLICY .................................................... 9
EXHIBIT HALL HOURS ...................................................... 9
CHANGES/OMISSIONS ..................................................... 9
2020 SAFE VIRTUAL SYMPOSIUM SPONSORS .................... 10
CORPORATE SUSTAINING MEMBER LISTING .................11-12
2020 SAFE VIRTUAL SYMPOSIUM EXHIBITORS .................. 13
MONDAY PROGRAM ................................................... 14-22
TUESDAY PROGRAM .................................................. 22-35
WEDNESDAY PROGRAM ..............................................35-45
THURSDAY & FRIDAY EVENTS .....................................45-54
Page 1 of 54SPECIAL REMINDERS
SAFE Administration will be distributing via email Daily At-A-
Glance schedules. Each day’s schedule will be released the
evening prior and will include time and channel location for major
events, as well as any important information for our attendees.
Due to different time zones, we understand not all of our
attendees will be able to attend every event, so SAFE
Administration will be posting recordings of all of our
presentations on the SAFE 2020 Symposium page. Attendees will
have access to these presentations until the end of December.
Along with scheduled events, the SAFE Virtual Exhibit Hall will
remain open, 24 hours a day, until the end of December.
Please remember to always mute your microphone and disable
your camera when logging into the virtual SAFE Symposium each
day. If you experience any technical difficulties or have questions
on accessing areas of the Symposium page, please email any of
the following:
• Symposium@safeassociation.com
• Sym-Co-Chair@safeassociation.com
• Admin@safeassociation.com
THE SAFE ASSOCIATION
SAFE is an association of researchers, producers, and users of
safety and survival equipment and systems. The SAFE Association
provides a common meeting ground for the sharing of problems,
ideas, and information through its publications, regional chapter
meetings, and the annual symposium. The objectives and
purposes of SAFE:
• To advance the science and art as it pertains to personal
safety and survival systems through the stimulation of
investigation and study, and by dissemination of knowledge.
• To establish and maintain effective liaison between all per-
sons, agencies, and societies concerned with the development
manufacture and use of personal safety and survival systems.
• To pledge its dedication to the preservation of human lives
and equipment in all environments in which man ventures.
Page 2 of 542020 SYMPOSIUM COMMITTEE
SYMPOSIUM COMMITTEE CHAIR
Nicole Stefanoni
SYMPOSIUM COMMITTEE CO-CHAIR
Edgar A. “Ted” Poe
SAFE ASSOCIATION ADMINISTRATOR
Stacy Stuber
TECHNICAL PROGRAM COORDINATOR
Dr. Casey Pirnstill
Page 3 of 542020 SAFE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
ELECTED POSITIONS
PRESIDENT & FINANCE COMMITTEE MEMBER
John Plaga
Senior Research Aerospace Engineer
Galloway, OH
IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT
Edgar A. “Ted” Poe
TEDGAR Consulting, LLC
Bettendorf, IA
PRESIDENT-ELECT
Ebby Bryce
Chemring Energetic Devices
Poquoson, VA
VICE PRESIDENT & FINANCE COMMITTEE CHAIR
Jerry Reid
SKYTEXUS International
Malakoff, TX
SECRETARY
Kevin Divers
Pro Flight Gear, LLC
Brentwood, TN
TREASURER & FINANCE COMMITTEE MEMBER
Steve Bromley
Mustang Survival
Jacksonville, FL
Page 4 of 542020 SAFE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
APPOINTED POSITIONS
EXECUTIVE ADVISOR & FINANCE COMMITTEE MEMBER
Joe Spinosa
East/West Industries, Inc.
Ronkonkoma, NY
SYMPOSIUM COMMITTEE CHAIR
Nicole Stefanoni
Life Support International, Inc.
Langhorne, PA
SYMPOSIUM COMMITTEE CO-CHAIR
Edgar A. “Ted” Poe
TEDGAR Consulting, LLC
Bettendorf, IA
INFORMATION MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE CHAIR
Stephen C. Merriman
Allen, TX
INFORMATION MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE CO-CHAIR
Harrison Smith
Martin-Baker Aircraft Co. Ltd.
Uxbridge, United Kingdom
SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE CHAIR
Dr. Casey Pirnstill
AFRL/711th HPW/RHBNB
Beavercreek, OH
CHAPTERS COMMITTEE CHAIR
Rachael Ryan
NAVAIR
Great Mill, MD
NOMINATIONS COMMITTEE CHAIR
Allen “Al” Loving
ADL Consultant Services, Inc.
Chesapeake, VA
Page 5 of 54AWARDS COMMITTEE CHAIR
Mark Jones
Gentex Corporation
Simpson, PA
ASSOCIATION DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE CHAIR
Chris Dooley
711 HPW/RHMP
Liberty Township, OH
MEMBERSHIP COMMITTEE CHAIR
Steve Roberts
Martin-Baker Aircraft Co. Ltd.
Uxbridge, United Kingdom
JOURNAL AND EDITORIAL COMMITTEE CHAIR
Dr. Camille Bilger
Martin-Baker Aircraft Co. Ltd.
Uxbridge, United Kingdom
2020 SAFE CHAPTER PRESIDENTS
Chapter One - Southern California
Kirsten Larsen
Diversified Technical Systems, Inc
Seal Beach, CA
East Coast Chapter
TBD
Rocket City Chapter
Dan Meadows
SkyTexus International
Ider, AL
Grand Canyon Chapter
Bob LaFrance
TASK Aerospace
Mesa, AZ
Page 6 of 54Pacific Rim Chapter
Dr. Robert Yonover
SEE/RESCUE Corporation
Honolulu, HI
SAFE Europe – Chair
Sarah Day
QinetiQ
Farnborough, United Kingdom
Wright Brothers Chapter
Mark Gruber
Omni Defense Technologies Corp.
Dublin, OH
DFW Metro Chapter
Lizanne Luchetti
Sera Star, LLC
Carrollton, TX
Down Under Chapter
Steve Madaras
South Australia, Australia
Middle East Chapter
Mohanad Alakal
Survitec
UAE, Abu Dhabi
Page 7 of 54SAFE PAST PRESIDENTS & HONORARY
LIFE MEMBERS
Adams, Paul Eckhart, Jeffrey, K. O’Rourke, Charles (Dick)
Adams, William, J. Fair, John Paskoff, Glenn
Aileo, Jackson, A. Fedrizzi, Henry, A. Pellettiere, Joseph
Albery, William, Fish, Howard, C. Plaga, John
Albinowski, Joel Gaylord, Jack Poe, Edgar “Ted”
Alston, Greg, Germeraad, Donald, P. Pugh-Bevan, Chris
Altman, Jr., Ph.D., H., Goldenrath, W., L. Reddell, W., H. (Major
Ames, Smith, Goldner, Steve General)
Atkins, E., Richard Goodrich, George Roe, George, M.
Bailey, Bryan "Beetle" Gutman, Georges Rosenberg, Isadore,
Baldwin, Marcia Harding, Jonathan Rosie
Barmasse, Alfred, C. Hedbloom, Bob (Captain) Runkle, William (Colonel),
Barnes, K., M. (Bud) Henderson, A., M. (Chic) Sadler, Robert, F.
Billings, Robert (Colonel) Shannon, Robert, H.
Bloom, Aaron Johnson, Gerald (Jerry) Shender, Ph.D., Barry, S.
Braue, George Johnson, James, M. Shook, William, H.
Brazell, Robert, R. Kaletta, M., R. (Jim) Shope, Barry
Brinkley, James, W. Karl, Alva, A. Snider, Robert, C.
Caldera, Joseph, D. Lauffer, Brian, P. Spaulding, Roy, H.
Call, Ph.D., Douglas, W. Licina, Joseph Spinosa, Dominic
Catton, Jack, J. Loving, Allen "Al" Spinosa, Joseph
Chenoweth, James, M. Marks, Kenneth, A. Spruance, William, W.
Choisser, Donald, C. McCauley, Donald, E. (Brigadier General)
Contarino, B., RaNae McDonald, A., Blair Sylvester, William, A.
Cook, Tom McDonald, Chance (Ed) Thomasson, F., Terry
Cornette, Christy McLaughlin, Robert, L. Tompkins, Robert, H.
Darrah, Ph.D., Mark, I. McMullen, John Troup, Kenneth, F.
Davis, Albert, B.C. McNaughton, John vanHaastert, Tony
Davis, Donald, G. Merriman, Steve Vinson, Lewis, T.
Delgado, Rudolph, G. Miller, Brian, A. Watson, Harold, G.
DeSimone, David, N. Minner, Clifford, R. (Bob) Webster, H., Tom
Desjardins, Stanley, P. Modlin, James, H. White, Richard, P.
Disoway, Gabriel, P. Morris, Ph.D., Ronald, Wolf, Richard
Drumheller II, Ed Motta, Chris Yamazaki, Yoshihisa
Duskin, Fred Muir, Donald, L. Yonover, Robert
Nickerson, Ada, H.
Page 8 of 54REGISTRATION POLICY
To participate in the Virtual SAFE Symposium Event, you must
register online. Please visit the SAFE website for registration rates
and link.
The SAFE Association accepts Visa, MasterCard, and American Ex-
press.
EXHIBIT HALL HOURS
The exhibit hall will remain open, 24 hours a day, thru December.
ALL ATTENDEES AND EXHIBITORS
ARE INVITED TO ATTEND:
VIRTUAL SOCIAL EVENTS
Wednesday, 12/2 SAFE Trivia 11:30 AM – 12:30 PM
Thursday, 12/3 Best Photo Contest 11:30 AM – 12:30 PM
CHANGES/OMISSIONS
SAFE reserves the right to make changes to schedules listed in
this program. Omission of names, affiliations, titles, and presen-
tations in the program resulting from lateness of material and/or
incomplete submissions is regretted.
Page 9 of 542020 VIRTUAL SYMPOSIUM SPONSORSHIPS
SAFE would like to thank the following members of
industry for their participating in the
2020 Virtual Symposium Sponsorship Program
Collins Aerospace
(Diamond Level Sponsorship)
Survitec Group
(Ruby Level Sponsorship)
East/West Industries, Inc.
(Sapphire Level Sponsorship)
Massif
(Opal Level Sponsorship)
Cobham Mission Systems
(Opal Level Sponsorship)
Page 10 of 54CORPORATE SUSTAINING MEMBERS
Without the support of our Corporate Sustaining Members, SAFE
would not be the dynamic organization that it is. The SAFE Board
would like to thank these Corporate Members:
Aqua Innovation, Ltd.
Autoflug GmbH
BAE Systems-Protection Systems
Bally Ribbon Mills
Butler Parachute Systems, Inc.
Cam Lock
Capewell Aerial Systems
Cartridge Energetic Devices
Chemring Energetic Devices
Cobham Mission Systems - Davenport
Cobham Mission Systems - N.Y.
Collins Aerospace
Dayton T. Brown, Inc.
Diversified Technical Systems, Inc.
DSB - Deutsche Schlauchboot GmbH
East/West Industries, Inc.
Essex Industries
First-Light USA
Fujikura Parachute Co., Ltd.
FXC Corporation
Gentex Corporation
Hoffman Engineering, LLC
Integrated Procurement Technologies (IPT)
Kistler Instrument Corporation
L3Harris Technologies
Life Support International, Inc.
Martin-Baker Aircraft Co., Ltd.
Massif
Page 11 of 54CORPORATE SUSTAINING MEMBERS
Nammo Talley, Inc.
Networks Electronic Company
Omni Defense Technologies Corp.
Pacific Scientific Energetic Materials Co.
Para-Gear Equipment Company
Point Blank Enterprises
Pro Flight Gear, LLC
R.E. Darling Co., Inc.
RINI Technolgies, Inc.
Secumar Bernhardt Apparatebau GmbH u. Co.
SEE/RESCUE Corporation
Signal Engineering, Inc.
SkyTexus, International
SSK Industries, Inc.
Stratus Systems, Inc.
Survitec Group, Ltd.
Survival Innovations, Inc.
Switlik Parachute Co., Inc.
Systems Technology, Inc.
Teledyne Energetics
Wolf Technical Services, Inc.
Please thank our corporate members – they are the
backbone of our Association and are to be commended
for their constant support.
Page 12 of 542020 SAFE VIRTUAL SYMPOSIUM EXHIBITORS
Exhibitor
Air Force Research Laboratory
Capewell Aerial Systems
Cobham Mission Systems
Collins Aerospace
Diversified Technical Systems, Inc.
East/West Industries, Inc.
Elemance, LLC
Essex Industries
First Light USA
General Dynamics Mission Systems
Insta ILS OY
Life Support International, Inc.
Martin-Baker Aircraft Company, Ltd.
Massif
Mustang Survival/The Patten Companies – Part of
the Wing Group of Companies
Omni Medical Systems, Inc.
SAFE Association
See/Rescue Corporation
Stratus Systems, Inc.
Survitec Group, Ltd.
Switlik Survival Products
TIAX, LLC.
Virginia Beach Convention and Visitors Bureau
Visit Mobile Alabama
Page 13 of 55MONDAY, NOVEMBER 30th
MONDAY - 9:00 AM – 9:05 AM
ATTENDEE SIGN-ON
MONDAY – 9:05 AM – 9:10 AM
DIAMOND SPONSOR MESSAGE, COLLINS AEROSPACE
LOCATION: CHANNEL 1
MONDAY – 9:10 AM – 9:15 AM
2020 SAFE INTRODUCTION
LOCATION: CHANNEL 1
MONDAY – 9:15 AM – 9:20 AM
2020 SAFE PRESIDENT WELCOME PRESENTATION
LOCATION: CHANNEL 1
MONDAY – 9:30 AM – 10:30 AM
KEYNOTE SPEAKER PRESENTATION
LOCATION: CHANNEL 1
KEYNOTE SPEAKER
PRESENTATION
Rear Admiral John F. Meier
Commander, Naval Air Force Atlantic
Rear Adm. John F. Meier, a native of
Export, Pennsylvania, graduated from the
United States Naval Academy in 1986 with
a Bachelor of Science in General
Engineering. He completed flight training in
Beeville, Texas, and was “winged” as a
Naval Aviator in August 1988.
Meier’s operational assignments include Electronic Attack Squadron-
141 (VAQ-141), Carrier Air Wing Two (CVW-2), VAQ-128, and
executive officer onboard USS Harry S. Truman (CVN-75), during
which the command was recognized with the 2008, 2009 & 2010
Battle “E” and the 2009 Safety “S.” Command tours include VAQ-
136, earning the Safety “S” and Battle “E” in 2004 as well as the
Page 14 of 542005 Retention Excellence award; USS Gunston Hall (LSD-44),
earning the 2011 Battle “E”; and Pre-commissioning Unit Gerald R.
Ford (CVN-78) earning the 2014 &2015 Retention Excellence
awards. Meier most recently commanded Carrier Strike Group Ten
(CSG-10) earning the Humanitarian Service award.
Meier’s shore assignments include tours at VAQ-129, where he was
recognized as Instructor Pilot of the Year in 1995; EA-6B placement
officer at Navy Personnel Command; senior operations officer and
emergency actions officer on the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff in the National Military Command Center; requirements officer
for EA-18G at the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations (OPNAV)
N88; assistant chief of staff force readiness officer at Commander,
Naval Air Forces; assistant commander, Navy Personnel Command
for Career Management (PERS-4); and commander, Navy Warfare
Development Command.
Meier has participated in operations around the world since Desert
Storm, lead Southern Partnership Station and built the crew and
culture of USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) as her first commanding
officer. He has accumulated over 4,000 flight hours and 675 carrier
landings.
Meier assumed command of Naval Air Force Atlantic on May 1,
2020.
His decorations include the Legion of Merit and various other
personal and unit level awards.
MONDAY – 10:45 AM –11:30 AM
SPECIAL SPEAKER PRESENTATION
LOCATION: CHANNEL 1
SPECIAL SPEAKER
PRESENTATION
DR. DAVE PRAKASH
Dr. Dave Prakash was a physician but left
his medical career to join the US Air Force.
He omitted the fact that he was a doctor in
his application to ensure he went straight to
Page 15 of 54pilot training. He went on to fly as an operational test pilot in the B-52
where he tested new weapons, tactics and system upgrades. Dave
also convinced the Air Force to let him work as a flight surgeon,
becoming one of ten pilot-physicians in the entire service. Dave
combined his perspectives as a pilot and a doctor to improve combat
capabilities and aircrew safety in bomber aircraft. In 2017, he left the
Air Force after 13 years of service to attend Stanford University and
pursue degrees in business and public policy.
Today, Dave works for a Fortune 50 company in Palo Alto, CA where
he develops artificial intelligence-based solutions to transform
healthcare delivery. He also consults for Northrop Grumman, advises
health tech startups, and serves on the Executive Leadership
Committee for the National Kidney Foundation.
Organizational Resistance to Upgrading Legacy Systems.
The B-52H operates the oldest ejection system in the Air Force. The
good news is that the seat still works just as well as it did when it was
new 60 years ago. The bad news is that it only works as well as it did
when it was new. The suggestion of replacing or improving legacy
systems is often met with great institutional resistance. Dave Prakash
will share his experience leading an effort to improve the B-52 ejection
system and the lessons he learned on driving change and influencing
large institutions.
MONDAY – 11:30 AM – 11:45 AM
SAFE 2020 AWARDS PRESENTATION (SPONSOR EAST/WEST
INDUSTRIES)
LOCATION: CHANNEL 1
MONDAY – 11:45 AM – 12:00 PM
SAFE 2020 SYMPOSIUM COMMITTEE MESSAGE
LOCATION: CHANNEL 1
MONDAY – 12:00 PM – 1:00 PM
SYMPSOIUM BREAK (SPONSOR SURVITEC GROUP)
LOCATION: CHANNEL 1
Page 16 of 54MONDAY: 1:00 P.M. – 3:00 P.M.
AEROSPACE PHYSIOLOGY
LOCATION: Channel 1
MODERATOR: Mr. Chris Dooley, AFRL/711TH HPW
BRIEFING: SPYDR: Integrated Human Performance Sensing - Program
Updates - Dr. Brian Bradke1
1
Spotlight Labs, Haddonfield, NJ
INTRODUCTION:
Human error has been identified as the most common cause of preventable
aviation mishaps and is responsible for most fatalities which occur in
commercial, military, and general aviation. While "human error" itself is a
vague term with no singular root cause, one of the largest contributing factors
in the error chain is the pilot's mental and physiological condition. The recent
surge in physiological episodes has concerned both pilots and commanders,
since reduced human performance represents a serious and avoidable risk to
airborne operations.
METHODS:
SPYDR was created to monitor, analyze, and warn operators of performance
decrements and impending incapacitation. The original concept for a form-fit,
functional replacement for the ear cups in a flyer's helmet has since evolved
into a multi-modal, open-architecture, standalone system. SPYDR's
capabilities have expanded dramatically, incorporating multiple sensor data
streams in real-time, collecting and assessing physiological data from both
the cardiovascular and respiratory systems. SPYDR has the ability to warn of
hypoxia, hypo/hypercapnia, cockpit CO2 levels, and OBOGS contamination.
With more than 300 sorties and 600 hours of data from over 60 different
subjects, SPYDR has been proven to reliably capture clinical-grade data while
remaining transparent and unobtrusive the wearer. This briefing will present
findings from operational test, as well as a technology road map, program
risks and development timelines.
RESULTS & DISCUSSION:
The human operator has long been recognized as the weakest link in modern
weapons systems. Until recently, there has been no objective system for
augmenting the brain in evaluating the status of the human system. For the
first time, physiological and environmental data can be gathered from all
flights, providing key information for pilots, commanders, physicians, and
scientists attempting to maximize human performance while mitigating the
risks from physiological degradation. With the option of including multiple
sensors, SPYDR is a proven, scalable, integrated cockpit sensing platform
ready for operational deployment.
Page 17 of 54BRIEFING: Updates on Clinical Field Trials of Pharmacologic Motion
Sickness Countermeasures - Commander Matthew Doubrava1
1
Naval Medical Research Unit Dayton, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH
INTRODUCTION:
Briefing on the status of the clinical field trial of intranasal scopolamine being
performed by the Naval Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory(NAMRL) at
the Naval Medical Research Unit- Dayton (NAMRU-D) in conjunction with its
industry partner, Defender Pharmaceuticals, Inc (DEFENDER).
METHODS:
As part of the FDA’s criteria for approval for military forces, INSCOP is to be
evaluated under operational conditions with the greatest possible fidelity.
INSCOP is currently under evaluation comparing its efficacy, pharmacokinetics
and safety to current standard of care, the transdermal scopolamine patch and
oral dimenhydrinate. Clinical field trials in operational conditions have proved
challenging with active military forces. DEFENDER has conducted a civilian
version of the military protocol to run parallel with the military efforts to serve
as a surrogate study.
RESULTS & DISCUSSION:
As part of the FDA’s criteria for approval for military forces, INSCOP is to be
evaluated under operational conditions with the greatest possible fidelity.
INSCOP is currently under evaluation comparing its efficacy, pharmacokinetics
and safety to current standard of care, the transdermal scopolamine patch and
oral dimenhydrinate. Clinical field trials in operational conditions have proved
challenging with active military forces. DEFENDER has conducted a civilian
version of the military protocol to run parallel with the military efforts to serve
as a surrogate study. Discussion will focus on project status, testing and
evaluation protocols being used and under development. In addition, future
research plans and a roadmap for possible acquisition will be briefed. This is a
prime example of research and development being transitioned to a test and
evaluation environment with a possibility for succeeding in acquisition to fulfill
an operational gap to improve human performance in a provocative
environment.
BRIEFING: Guidelines for Physiologic Monitoring System Warning
Levels Based on Objective and Subjective Responses to Moderate
Hypobaric Hypoxia - Dr. Barry Shender1, Mr. Eric Joyce2, Ms. Jessica
Anderson2, Dr. Phillip Whitley3, Dr. Jeremy Beer4
1
Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division, Patuxent River, MD; 2Athena GTX, Inc.;
3
Criterion Analysis, Inc.; 4KBR Science & Mission Solutions Group
Page 18 of 54INTRODUCTION:
To detect and predict “physiological episodes” occurrence, NAVAIR and
NAWCAD are developing a monitoring/warning system to estimate aircrew
vital signs and cognitive status.
METHODS:
Thirteen volunteers (32±6 yr.) gave their informed consent and received a
hypobaric exposure in the KBR Brooks City-Base, TX altitude chamber facility.
The profile included 5,000 ft/min transitions to 10,000ft and 14,000ft 10-min
plateaus, and 20-min at 17,500ft (17.5K) while breathing 21% O2. Symptoms
were reported using a 0-10 scale (10=maximal).
The Holistic Modular Aircrew Physiologic Status (HMAPS) Monitoring System
was used to measure SpO2, PR, and pressure. A cognitive impairment index
(CI) estimates cerebral cognitive reserve and relates it to SpO2 and multi-task
performance. A Summary State (SS) index fuses vital signs to estimate overall
status. CI and SS have 5-point scales (5=highest degradation). Mask CO2
pressure, respiration rate (RR), and cerebral tissue oximetry (rSO2) were also
measured. Data are presented as mean ±1 standard deviation change from
ground level during the last two-min of exposure. Vitals were aligned in time
with subjective ratings. A two-tailed t-test compared differences between
responses of subjects who completed the 17.5K vs. those who did not
(p≤0.05).
RESULTS & DISCUSSION:
Ten subjects completed 17.5K; three without reporting symptoms. The three
subjects ending their exposure early ranged from 5:20 to 18:22 minutes. The
results were:
PR
SpO2 rSO2 RR CO2
change SS CI
change (%) change (bpm) (mmHg)
(bpm)
Terminated
20.8±2.2 -28.8±3.2 -21.7±3.3 2.8±0.4 4.1±0.3 0.9±2.1 -1.3±2.0
Early
-
Completed 14.4±8.5 -23.5±5.2 -16.1±4.7 2.7±0.4 3.6±1.1 -3.2±0.5
0.4±1.6
No -
8.2±8.8 -20.2±10.1 -16.9±13.5 1.8±1.1 2.8±1.8 -2.9±1.1
Symptoms 2.3±1.3
Mean change in SpO2, PR, rSO2, and SS between symptomatic subjects who
completed 17.5K and those who did not were significantly different (pBRIEFING: Assessment of the ability of RCAF fast jet aircrew to
survive extreme cold exposure in the Canadian Arctic while awaiting
rescue following an ejection - Dr. Fethi Bouak1, Mr. Vaughn Cosman2, Ms.
Wendy Sullivan-Kwantes3, Mr. Kevin Hofer3, Ms. Ingrid Smith3, Ms. Adrienne
Sy3
1
Defence Research and Development Canada – Toronto Research Centre, Toronto;
2
ADM(S&T), Directorate Science and Technology Air; 3Defence Research and
Development Canada – Toronto Research Centre
INTRODUCTION:
In the event of an ejection over the Arctic, aircrew become exposed to
extreme cold. Clothing and Aviation Life Support Equipment (ALSE: LPSV and
Seat Pack) may not provide sufficient thermal protection to avoid life
threatening cold weather injuries (CWI) while awaiting rescue. A field trial was
conducted in Tuktoyaktuk (Canada) to monitor physiological and subjective
responses of fast jet aircrew during a simulated ejection in extreme cold, and
to assess their ability to survive, given their issued clothing, ALSE and
training, until rescue.
METHODS:
Ten RCAF aircrew (9 males, 1 female; 26.3±1.4 yr) from the fast jet
community completed field testing (exposure duration: 2-4 h; outdoor
temperature: -9 to -18°C) over three days, involving cold survival that
included physical activities. Skin (pinky fingers and big toes) and core
temperatures were continuously monitored. Participants gave subjective
ratings for thermal comfort and mood, completed surveys on clothing and
ALSE, and took part in semi-structured interviews regarding their experience
using the equipment.
RESULTS & DISCUSSION:
Toe and finger skin temperatures dropped below 15°C with continued cold
exposure and reached levels as low as 5°C for some participants, leading to
numbness and increased risks of serious CWI. In addition to the skin
temperature changes, decreases of both thermal comfort and positive affect
ratings suggest the importance of preventing cooling of the fingers and toes.
Findings showed that some of the clothing, such as footwear and handwear,
were inadequate for Arctic temperatures, and that certain items of ALSE
equipment were identified as being highly important but requiring
improvement. The participants’ knowledge of ALSE contents and their ability to
adequately use them in cold conditions was found to be unsatisfactory.
Thermal comfort and mood ratings, and more generally the ability to cope with
cold stress, showed that participants who received Arctic survival training had
a clear advantage.
Page 20 of 54BRIEFING: Responses of Royal Canadian Air Force aircrew to a
simulated crash scenario under extreme cold stress - Dr. Fethi Bouak1,
Ms. Wendy Sullivan-Kwantes1, Dr. Matthew Cramer1, Mr. Kevin Hofer1, Ms.
Olivia Paserin1, Ms. Katy Moes1
1
Defence Research and Development Canada – Toronto Research Centre, Toronto
INTRODUCTION:
If an air disaster were to occur in the Arctic extreme cold conditions, military
aircrew from crewed aircraft may not be sufficiently protected by their issued
clothing and the on-board Aviation Life Support Equipment (ALSE) to avoid life
threatening or career impacting cold weather injuries (CWI) until rescue. A
field trial was conducted in Resolute Bay (Canada) to identify performance
gaps in clothing and ALSE in operational setting, and assess the ability of
aircrew to work as a team and survive in temperatures at or below -40°C
following a simulated crash.
METHODS:
Fifteen RCAF aircrew (13 males, 2 females; 32.0±9.6 yr) from three crewed
aircraft were divided into two groups (Gr1: N=11; Gr2: N=4) and exposed to
air temperatures of -37 to -45°C (windchill: -50°C). They were instructed to
use on-board ALSE (i.e., Basic and Arctic Survival Kits) to survive for 24-48h
(estimated domestic SAR response), given their training and issued clothing.
Big toes and pinky fingers skin and core temperatures, heart rate and physical
activity were continuously measured. Participants subjectively rated their
thermal comfort and mood, answered surveys on clothing and ALSE, and
completed semi-structured interviews.
RESULTS & DISCUSSION:
Finger and toe temperatures gradually dropped to as low as 5°C, indicating
greater CWI risk. Despite equivalent environmental conditions, Gr1 withstood
less than 12h of cold exposure duration compared to 23h for Gr2. Thermal
discomfort and cold stress appeared similar between both groups for the first
8h. Given their previous training, Gr2 had more cold weather experience and
significantly more knowledge of ALSE contents with increased ability and
confidence to use it, which may have led to positive group dynamic and ability
to withstand the extreme cold temperatures for a longer duration. With proper
Arctic survival training, it may be possible for aircrew to survive the harsh
Canadian Arctic until rescue.
BRIEFING: Aviation Ejection Assessment Scenarios: A Tool for
Parachute Descent Emergency Procedure Training - Ms. Kaylin Strong1,
Ms. Cayla Hartley1, Mr. Matthew Pierce2, Ms. Beth Wheeler Atkinson3, Dr.
Steven Kass4
1
University of West Florida, Pensacola, FL; 2Naval Air Warfare Center Training Systems
Division; 3NAWCTSD, Training Systems RDT&E Department; 4University of West Florida
Page 21 of 54INTRODUCTION:
Assessment scenarios, or event-based training, introduce realistic events
within training exercises and allow opportunities to observe behaviors of
interest (Dwyer et al., 1998). For assessment scenarios to be successful, they
must be appropriate to the trainee’s current level of knowledge, provide a
reasonable amount of challenge, and allow for the practice of previously
taught skills (Cannon-Bowers et al., 2013). This paper details assessment
scenarios developed to support the Naval Aviation Survival Training Program
(NASTP) parachute descent emergency procedure training evaluations and
highlights the benefits of their use to training.
METHODS:
Several sources were used to create assessment scenarios. In addition to
keyword searches of databases, the research team conducted a Google search
to locate news articles with relevant information. This search led to the United
States Parachute Association webpage, which provides incident and accident
reports related to recreational jumps. Additional information was collected
from Martin-Baker, a company that manufactures ejection seats for the
Department of Defense. Finally, the most robust source of information was
from interviews with pilots who had previously ejected from an aircraft.
RESULTS & DISCUSSION:
A total of seven assessment scenarios were developed, all of which are based
on real events that arose from various pilots’ experiences post ejection. Each
scenario includes several variables including date, aircraft type, weather
conditions, geography, cause for ejection, altitude upon ejection, parachute
malfunction, training procedures used, landing obstacles, injuries, oscillation,
parachute landing fall (PLF) strategies, and total descent time. The variables
associated with each assessment scenario provide data for initial conditions to
support scenario development. These scenarios, with relevant performance
measures, will serve as a basis for evaluating two distinct simulation trainers.
Additionally, these scenarios could also serve as a valuable instructional tool
for emergency parachute descent procedures, which can save lives.
MONDAY – 3:00 PM
END OF DAY BROADCAST
LOCATION: CHANNEL 1
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 1st
TUESDAY - 9:00 AM
SIGN-ON/WELCOME MESSAGE
LOCATION: CHANNEL 1
Page 22 of 54TUESDAY: 9:30 AM – 11:30 AM
OXYGEN/CONTAMINANTS/HEALTH I
LOCATION: Channel 1
MODERATOR: Mr. John Plaga, AFRL/711TH HPW
BRIEFING: Sieve Bed Rig Development for Contamination Testing of
the OBOGS Concentrator - Dr. Krisiam Ortiz-Martinez1, Ms. Ashley Ziur1, Dr.
Leah Eller1
1
NAVAIR, Patuxent River, MD
INTRODUCTION:
Currently, there is no standardized test method for assessing the chemical
protection performance of On-Board Oxygen Generating System (OBOGS)
concentrators and validating that these breathing system components provide
the required chemical protection as specified in MIL-STD-3050. In an effort to
close these gaps, a molecular sieve test rig was developed as an initial
contamination test setup intended to correlate with full-concentrator testing.
Molecular sieves are the heart of the OBOGS concentrator; therefore, better
understanding how individual chemical contaminants interact with the sieves
will shed light on how the concentrator handles chemicals and how to predict
the fate of the chemical compounds when they reach the OBOGS.
METHODS:
Design and build of the test rig were developed to evaluate the adsorption and
desorption performance of the molecular sieves with regard to filtering out
chemical contaminants from the air at relevant conditions within a controlled
laboratory environment. The setup was designed to inject chemicals and purge
gas into a bed filled with molecular sieve using a remote interface of mass-
flow controllers and multi-port valves at the bed inlet and outlet, respectively,
to simulate pressure swing. 13X molecular sieves were tested against target
contaminants to represent generic compound species relevant to MIL-STD-
3050. The effects of temperature, flow rate, chemical concentration, and
humidity on the removal of contaminants were also studied. A mass
spectrometer assessed the performance of the sieves at the outlet of the bed,
and target chemicals were quantified to determine breakthrough behaviors.
RESULTS & DISCUSSION:
Through these testing, breakthrough curves were obtained for each chemical
system. Adsorption capacities, breakthrough times, and breakthrough
parameters were also measured. The parameters were used to model the
adsorption profiles and predict the fate of contaminants in OBOGS
concentrators. These findings seek to define optimal test setup and test
method for future verification of chemical contaminant testing for OBOGS
concentrators.
Page 23 of 54BRIEFING: Method Development for Chemical Testing of Oxygen
Concentrators: A Review of Chemical Targets - Dr. Leah Eller1, Ms. Ashley
Ziur1, Dr. Krisiam Ortiz-Martinez1
1
Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division, Patuxent River, MD
INTRODUCTION:
With the publication of MIL-STD-3050 in 2015, a new chemical protection
requirement was added to the performance requirements of On-Board Oxygen
Generating Systems (OBOGS) oxygen concentrators. Currently, there is no
standardized method to test oxygen concentrators against the new chemical
protection requirement. Scientists and engineers at the Naval Air Warfare
Center Aircraft Division (NAWCAD) have undertaken a multiyear effort to
dissect the requirement as written in the military standard and to develop a
reliable and repeatable test method. One of the first milestones in this effort
was to review the chemicals listed for assessment in MIL-STD-3050 in the
context of their chemical and physical properties and determine useful
strategies for the detecting and quantifying those materials.
METHODS:
A paper study was conducted to examine the chemical and physical properties
of the specific chemicals listed in MIL-STD-3050, published in 2015. This study
supported a subsequent analysis of alternatives, AoA, regarding potential
detection systems and other details of a test rig setup for a future
standardized test method. Volatility, vaporization, stability and reactivity,
sensitivity towards various types of spectroscopy, ionization potential, etc.
were all considered. Accuracy, reliability, cost, and safety were all
considerations.
RESULTS & DISCUSSION:
The chemical targets, as listed in MIL-STD-3050, were prioritized to support
component-level testing with the molecular sieve material, the results of which
will inform future oxygen concentrator testing. Suitable detection systems
were identified for each chemical, with commentary on the safety and
feasibility of vapor phase testing. These findings support the long-term goal of
developing a platform-agnostic standardized test method for future verification
of chemical contaminant protection in OBOGS.
BRIEFING: Method Development for Chemical Testing of Oxygen
Concentrators: An Approach Overview - Dr. Leah Eller1, Ms. Ashley Ziur1,
Dr. Krisiam Ortiz-Martinez1
1
Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division, Patuxent River, MD
Page 24 of 54INTRODUCTION:
With the publication of MIL-STD-3050 in 2015, a new chemical protection
requirement was added to the performance requirements of On-Board Oxygen
Generating Systems (OBOGS) oxygen concentrators. Currently, there is no
standardized method to test oxygen concentrators against the new chemical
protection requirement. Scientists and engineers at the Naval Air Warfare
Center Aircraft Division (NAWCAD) have undertaken a multi-year effort to
dissect the requirement as written in the military standard and to develop a
reliable and repeatable test method against the chemical protection
requirement in MIL-STD-3050. This brief outlines the overall approach to this
multi-year effort to develop a standardized testing strategy.
METHODS:
A bottom-up strategy was employed, whereby the history of the new
requirement and the properties of the identified target chemicals were first
examined. This information supported the design and development of
component-level tests, which in turn, will support the design and development
of oxygen concentrator testing. It is anticipated that after each phase, the
chemical target list will be refined; all changes will be documented and
traceable to specific data.
RESULTS & DISCUSSION:
The background paper studies are completed, and component-level test rigs
have been developed and used to address issues of material compatibility and
safety. Chemical behavior modelling is in progress. Two additional
presentations at SAFE 2020 address the results of those efforts. The
concentrator test rig is currently being assembled and validated. Results of
concentrator testing will be reported on at SAFE 2021.
BRIEFING: A Model Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) approach to
designing the Next Generation of Pilot Flight Equipment – Mr. Kevin
Peters1
1
Survitec Group, NPD, Technology & Future Capability Manager
INTRODUCTION:
The Safety, Survival and Escape Equipment industry typically has applied a
very traditional document-based approach to the design and development of
products. The process of conception through to being market ready, often
requires a large amount of testing to gather the necessary evidence to prove
that when needed, the product will function as intended. This traditional
approach follows a systems engineering approach of verification and validation
(V&V) through physical testing and documented records.
METHODS:
Survitec are evolving the traditional document-based approaches to a model-
Page 25 of 54based approach. Survitec have begun to introduce tools and systems that
enable a Model Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) approach to design and
development for Safety, Survival and Escape Equipment. MBSE enhances the
ability to capture, analyze, share, and manage the information associated with
the specification of a product in real-time, and results in the following benefits:
• Improved communications among the design and development
stakeholders (e.g., the customer, program management, systems
engineers, testing team, and specialty engineering disciplines).
• Increased ability to manage system complexity by enabling a system
model to be viewed from multiple perspectives and to analyse the
impact of changes.
• Enhanced knowledge and data capture and reuse of the information by
capturing it in more standardized ways and leveraging built‐in
abstraction mechanisms inherent in model‐driven approaches. This in
turn can result in reduced cycle time, likelihood of error and capture
latent mistakes, and leading to lower maintenance costs to modify the
design (agile design).
• Improved ability to teach and learn SE fundamentals by providing a
clear and unambiguous representation of the concepts.
RESULTS & DISCUSSION:
The biggest challenge to overcome is the move away from traditional
document base approach. The fabric and technical textile materials used in the
construction of our products requires specialist software to enable the analysis
and simulation to produce useful and informed results. Until now, this has
been not easily been possible. We strive to be at the forefront of this
technology and by incorporating into our design process, will allow us greater
freedoms to validate concepts far earlier in the development process.
BRIEFING: History of Martin-Baker Sequencer Development – Mr. Mark
Elson1
1
Martin-Baker Aircraft Co Ltd (MBA), Higher Denham, UK
INTRODUCTION:
History of the development of electronic sequencers for Martin-Baker ejection
seats.
METHODS:
Martin-Baker has been involved in the development of electronic sequencers
since the first digital microprocessor-controlled sequencer for NACES in the
1990s through to the third incarnation of that sequencer underway today.
Martin-Baker sub-contracted much of the design and development to start
with but since 2007 developed their own.
Page 26 of 54RESULTS & DISCUSSION:
The history and lessons learned along the way will be discussed.
BRIEFING: Pressure Packing for a Safer Ejection - Mr Robin Saaristo1
1
Martin-Baker Aircraft Co Ltd, Near Uxbridge
INTRODUCTION:
Recovery parachutes for ejection seats can be hand packed or pressure
packed. Hand packing allows the operator to inspect and repack parachutes,
whereas pressure packing allows reduction of the container size and an
optimization of the parachute's useable life, thereby reducing life cycle cost
and preventing maintainer-induced errors. This paper will analyze the
difference between the two packing methods and the requirements behind
them, as well as demonstrate that pressure packing can result in a safer
ejection.
METHODS:
Differences between the two methods need to be considered in all of the
states that the parachute is found. Firstly, we need to consider the impact on
aircrew, with the parachute packed in its container and installed in the cockpit,
by analyzing the volumetric packing efficiency and considering its effect on the
field of view. Secondly, we need to consider the impact on maintenance, both
in terms of the work required and the risk for errors to occur. Thirdly, we need
to consider the most important factor, the performance during an ejection.
This is the effect of the two packing methods on extraction, inflation, descent
rate and injury risk.
RESULTS & DISCUSSION:
The volumetric packing efficiency is shown to be greater for a pressure packed
parachute container, therefore a better field of view can be achieved for a
given parachute. Repacking can result in errors that endanger safety and
novel inspection procedures can allow operators to verify the correct packing
by the supplier. Extraction times are shown to be identical and inflation times
to be independent of packing method. Considering the volumetric packing
efficiency, a larger parachute with a lower descent rate can be packed in a
parachute container of the same size. This is shown to result in a safer
ejection by assessing the associated risk of injury provided by historical risk
curves.
BRIEFING: Myth Busters: MIL-HDBK-516C Change Notice 5 - Mr. John
Hampton1
1
Collins Aerospace, Colorado Springs, CO
Page 27 of 54INTRODUCTION: Although the HDBK change notice was published 3 years ago, there is still confusion in the minds of some about what it means, to whom it applies, and whether it can be reliably demonstrated. METHODS: This presentation explains the updated injury criteria and airworthiness standards to which DoD platforms must comply. The briefing reviews why injury criteria evolved, and correlates the injury criteria to the widely-accepted industry standard: the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS). The ACES 5 seat reliably meets the criteria of
INTRODUCTION:
Advanced composite materials (ACM), incorporated into high performance
aircraft flown by Air Force pilots, are desirably lightweight yet durable and
strong. The exposure hazards associated with these increasingly complex
materials require investigation. Studies investigating possible exposure risks
first responders encounter indicated hazardous particulate and gaseous
emissions during ACM burn phase(s). However, limited data address
particulate hazards recovery operators handling burnt ACM experience.
Technical Order 00-105E-9 includes guidance to minimize hazardous
particulate exposure, but these recommendations lack experimental data. We
investigated common recovery operations on burnt ACM coupons and
characterized particulate emissions.
METHODS:
In a randomized study design, burnt coupons with different base polymer
composition, fuel content, and surface treatments (water, diluted floor wax)
for hazard control were key factors. Real-world composite coupons were cut or
impacted in an enclosed glovebox, from which air was sampled before, during,
and after each destructive process (~10 minutes). Aerosol size distribution,
concentration, and lung-deposited surface area (LDSA) was measured in real-
time using an Electrical Low Pressure Impactor, Aerodynamic Particle Sizer,
and electrometer. Air samples were collected onto matched-weight mixed
cellulose ester filters to measure respirable dust. Microscopy samples were
collected onto polycarbonate filters and electron microscopy grids.
RESULTS & DISCUSSION:
Cut coupons produced significantly more particulate (4E5 particles/cm3) than
impacted coupons (2E3 particles/cm3). A similar difference was observed
between cut and impacted samples for LDSA measurements (9E4 vs 1E2
µm2/cm3) and gravimetric analysis (39 mg/m3 vs 5 mg/m3 or less). Surface
treatment and composite base type also had an effect on particulate
concentrations. On average, water decreased emissions by 41-49% compared
to wax or none. These results will impact Air Force personnel and Technical
Orders advising recovery operations post-aircraft mishap. Follow-on work will
characterize particulate emissions of composites smoldered at different heat
rates. Understanding crash recovery exposure hazards will enable safer
recovery operation.
BRIEFING: Design and Development of a New USAF Life Support
Systems Scientific Test, Analysis, and Qualification Lab - Mr. John
Plaga1, Mr. Andrew Klein2
1
711 HPW/RHBFD, WPAFB, OH; 2AFLCMC/WNU
Page 29 of 54INTRODUCTION:
Beginning in 2013, there was a significant increase in reports of hypoxia-like
symptoms such as shortness of breath, confusion, and wheezing by USAF and
USN aircrew. Examination of these Unexplained Physiological Incidents (UPEs)
revealed that there were several possible contributors, including the On-Board
Oxygen Generation System (OBOGS), regulators, and aircrew equipment that
may be causing these dangerous effects. The UPEs jeopardized the health and
life of our aircrew, threatened loss of expensive aircraft valuable to national
security, and have even resulted in grounded air fleets, compromising real-life
DoD objectives and mission readiness. Congress reacted by providing a $5M
plus-up to determine root causes of the UPEs and to develop methods to
better identify and mitigate/stop these occurrences.
METHODS:
The Air Force responded by ensuring critical mass is applied to solve hypoxia
issues with the current fleet as well as head off any issues with new aircraft.
The focus was to address issues with on-board oxygen generation and delivery
to pilot by building an OBOGS laboratory for the Life Cycle Management Center
to test and validate Oxygen generation and delivery related equipment, freeing
the current lab to conduct R&D.
RESULTS & DISCUSSION:
The new lab design was baselined from the current OBOGS research
laboratory and modified as a result of experience and specific mission
requirements from LCMC. A 3200 square foot facility was identified and
modified for the lab. A two-phase approach to achieving Full Operational
Capability resulted in unique 3 chamber facility: a 64 cubic foot cabin chamber
and a 300 cubic foot aircraft/accumulator chamber in Phase 1, and an
additional 128 cubic foot environmental chamber in Phase 2, all of which were
rectangular for easy setup. The vacuum is provided by two 30 HP pumps,
connected to each chamber via a pipe main and independently controlled
valves. IOC is planned for October 2020.
BRIEFING: Aviation Light Duty Respirator (ALDR) – Dr. Mohamed
Mughal1 and Mr. William Strang2
1
Air Force Life Cycle Management Center (AFLCMC), Human Systems Division, Wright-
Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio; 2United States Navy, Naval Air Systems Command
(NAVAIR), PMA 202, Patuxent River Naval Base, Maryland.
INTRODUCTION:
Department of Defense (DoD) aircrew have been tasked with many non-
traditional missions to include transport of Ebola patients; evacuations in
nuclear contaminated environments during Operation Tomodachi; and
movement of military/civilian COVID-19 patients. These non-traditional
operations highlight a capability gap in personal protective equipment (PPE).
Page 30 of 54Current Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN) PPE are
designed to protect against battlefield warfare agents. Such PPE are grossly
overdesigned for non-traditional operations. More importantly, they add
unnecessary bulk and thermal burden which reduce aircrew effectiveness,
safety and endurance during potentially protracted emergency operations.
In short, DoD aircrew have a PPE capability gap when supporting non-
traditional emergency operations involving infectious diseases, low-level
radioactive materials and/or moderately toxic industrial chemicals and
materials. We have drafted a system requirement for an Aviation Light Duty
Respirator (ALDR) to fill this gap.
METHODS:
Our draft requirement statement is being coordinated and finalized through
the CBRN Integrated Concept Team (ICT) of the Joint Requirements Office.
RESULTS:
The ALDR will be scalable to mission needs, shall be capable of being
donned/doffed in flight, and shall include a CBRN hardened oronasal mask,
ocular protection, and cranial/temple wrap. Subassemblies shall be
independent of each other so aircrew can wear combinations as needed. The
solution(s) will be effective with existing aircrew gear including helmets,
communication systems, life support systems, vision correction devices, laser
eye protection, vests, life preservers, night vision goggles, and torso
harnesses.
DISCUSSION:
Through this presentation, the SAFE community will learn the Air Force and
the Navy’s approach to filling a critical capability gap. We seek feedback from
operational aircrew, Industry, and fellow Military Services regarding (1) our
overall approach to defining and coordinating the requirement, (2) potential
materiel and/or operational solutions, and (3) challenges to consider as we
move to fill this important, real-world need.
BRIEFING: COVID-19 Patient Transport on U.S. Military Aircraft -
Captain Alexis Todaro1
1
USAF AFMC AFLCMC/WN AF CBRN Defense Systems, WPAFB, OH
INTRODUCTION:
With the COVID-19 pandemic ongoing, the US Air Force was faced with the
challenge of moving infected individuals for treatment or quarantine without
jeopardizing protection to the aircrew and aircraft. In response, USTRANSCOM
JUON TC-003 for the ability to move large number of COVID-19 infected
personnel from worldwide locations to CONUS and OCONUS locations was
released. JUON TC-003 looked for both non-materiel and materiel solutions
which offered a better risk profile than open air transportation. Open air
Page 31 of 54transportation is a complex problem set which requires consideration of
aircrew and caregivers’ safety, decontamination of the aircraft, and increased
mission down time. With such, focus turned to the potential of modifying an
existing structure into a negatively pressurized system for safe transport of
individuals while allowing continued care and attention by medical teams.
METHODS:
As a rapid acquisition, a pre-fabricated forty-foot CONEX container was
modified for greater structural integrity and outfitted with HEPA filters and
negative pressure blower systems. The system is designed to pull air from the
aircraft fuselage through a set of HEPA filters, across a potentially
contaminated space, and through HEPA filters once again to be recirculated
into the aircraft environment. The following primary objectives were tested to
determine operational functionality of the system:
1. System will maintain a negative pressure environment
2. System will prevent the passage of particles greater than 0.3 microns
at 99.97% efficiency
3. System will provide a minimum of 12 air exchanges per hour
RESULTS & DISCUSSION:
Testing has been performed resulting in the system passing and receiving
approval for operational flight. Further analysis of results needs to be
conducted to inform proper egress procedures to mitigate the escape of
contamination once patient doors have been opened, evaluate the most cost
effective method by which to purify inbound and outbound air, and create a
repeatable process to check filter efficiency and biocontainment.
BRIEFING: Accelerator-Based Neutron Radiography to Support
CAD/PAD Supply Chain - Mr. Brad Bloomquist1, Dr. Evan Sengbusch1, Mr.
Dan Michalek2, Mr. Glenn Campbell2
1
Phoenix Neutron Imaging, LLC, Madison, WI; 2Naval Surface Warfare Center IHEODTD
INTRODUCTION:
Neutron radiography (N-ray) is a critical nondestructive inspection technique
used to complement X-ray. N-ray and X-ray are used to detect defects and
proper assembly of a variety of items in industry including Cartridge and
Propellant Actuated Devices (CAD/PADs). When utilized properly, these quality
control measures can help ensure the safety and effectiveness of these
lifesaving devices. Historically, nuclear reactors have been the only sources of
sufficient neutron flux to perform high quality, high throughput neutron
radiography. The CAD/PAD supply chain has been heavily reliant on a single
commercial nuclear reactor that has been operating since the 1950s with
closure imminent.
Page 32 of 54METHODS:
Phoenix has designed and manufactured particle accelerator-based neutron
imaging systems for over a decade. The latest generation neutron generator
has a measured strength over 10^13 neutrons/second. That high flux neutron
generator, in concert with an innovative radiography system and process
design, are utilized at the Phoenix Neutron Imaging Center (PNIC).
RESULTS & DISCUSSION:
It has been quantitatively and qualitatively demonstrated that this first of a
kind system and facility can meet the highest image quality standards
measured by ASTM and match the typical N-ray throughput of nuclear reactor
based N-ray facilities. PNIC has been utilized to demonstrate the viability of
utilizing this technology for supporting the CAD/PAD supply chain to the Navy’s
CAD/PAD Joint Program Office. The JPO has issued a letter to industry stating
that the Phoenix accelerator-based N-ray approach is a commercially viable
alternative and recommending industry secure the short term and long-term
N-ray capacity they need in order to mitigate supply chain disruptions. The use
of accelerator-based N-ray will enable facilities to be located across the
country to mitigate a major supply chain risk for the entire aerospace and
defense industry.
BRIEFING: Limb Restraints for Crew Escape Safety - Dr Camille Bilger1
1
Martin-Baker Aircraft Co Ltd, Near Uxbridge
INTRODUCTION:
High speed fighter aircraft introduce extreme aerodynamic exposure and
inertial forces during open-seat ejections, which can injure unrestrained limbs,
as a result of excessive joint motion or impact with the seat structure. The
challenge for crew escape system manufacturers is developing a limb restraint
design which will safely restrain the limbs while conforming to design
constraints which arise from aircraft and escape system requirements, as well
as human integration expectations from aircrew’s comfort, safety and
survivability, to total system performance and reliability.
METHODS:
The challenge of protecting aircrew from limb injuries during high-speed
ejections is described. Studies of the Martin-Baker ejection database have
shown that flail injuries to the upper limbs are aggravated at high speeds
when no arm restraint system is in place. A risk from flail injuries is
survivability in the immediate post ejection period. The possibility of an arm
injury preventing prompt release of the parachute, resulting in the aircrew
being dragged over terrain in high wind conditions, and as a result
compromising survivability is explored. Several variants of arm and leg
restraint systems are presented for consideration.
Page 33 of 54RESULTS & DISCUSSION:
Current crew escape system requirements call for limb restraint systems in
aircraft capable of speeds above 300 KEAS with leg restraints designed to
prevent movement of the legs laterally beyond the sides of the seat, and arm
restraints designed to prevent movement of arms rearward beyond the seat
back tangent line. However, success criteria have yet to be developed that
would allow limb restraint systems to be designed and assessed with
physiological limits in mind, in accordance with injuries identified as part of the
analysis of ejection accident data. In the absence of quantitative injury
metrics, the evaluation of limb restraint systems, for their different merits in
preventing injuries, must be performed qualitatively.
BRIEFING: CAD/PAD Engineering Investigations - Mr Nicholas Schombs1
1
NSWC IHEODTD CAD/PAD, Indian Head, MD
INTRODUCTION:
CAD/PAD is used on Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, Army, Coast Guard, NASA,
foreign military egress systems, fire suppression, stores, and survival
equipment. Engineering Investigations for CAD/PAD devices are processed on
fleet deficiencies to determine cause, effect and to minimize risk.
METHODS:
Process for engineering investigations will be discussed as well as engineering
methods.
RESULTS & DISCUSSION:
Provides a summary of recent engineering investigations that were supported
for United States Navy and United States Marine Corps aviation by the
CAD/PAD In-Service Engineering Department for the past year. Status and key
findings will be identified to support root cause analysis of the investigations.
BRIEFING: FEA Simulation - Mr. Steve Kana Mbazo1
1
Collins Aerospace, Colorado Springs, CO
INTRODUCTION:
Collins Aerospace crash simulation research has culminated in the ability to
accurately model crash event with close correlation to actual test data. The
briefing will review the analysis completed to simulate crash dynamic testing
conducted on a pilot seat as a means of validating design changes from a
certification perspective.
METHODS:
The pilot seat received TSO-C127a approval in 1999. Recently, the seats have
developed fatigue cracks. For the safety of the occupant, a repair kit is being
Page 34 of 54You can also read
